Malzacher v. 100 Audubon Corp.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered September 24, 1999, which, in an action by plaintiff firefighter to recover damages for injuries sustained while battling a three-alarm fire in a building owned by defendant, entered the jury’s verdict in favor of defendant, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new trial. 403 In this personal injury action alleging a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-a, the verdict in favor of defendant was “contrary to the conclusion that might fairly have been reached on the basis of the evidence” (Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 136). The evidence at trial supports the jury’s finding that defendant failed to install a self-closing door in the apartment in which the fire began, thereby violating Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-371, which requires that self-closing doors be installed in a multiple dwelling. Defendant’s expert failed to clearly rebut the opinion of plaintiff’s expert that the absence of a self-closing door was reasonably connected to plaintiffs injury. Proof of a reasonable connection between the violation and the firefighter’s injury is sufficient for recovery under General Municipal Law § 205-a (Johnson v Riggio Realty Corp., 153 AD2d 485, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 945). The determination of the jury was, therefore, contrary to the weight of the evidence. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.